The present invention relates to bumper impact-testing arrangements, where an impact barrier such as a pendulum or stationary barrier is modified to be more like a vehicle bumper on its impacting surface.
Vehicle bumper testing is an important part of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and related automobile insurance associations ratings and standards. Recently, government regulatory agencies and the insurance industry associations have wanted tests that better measure the stability of vehicle bumper engagements in low-speed crashes. (See SAE Technical paper 2004-01-1319, dated Mar. 8, 2004, entitled “Important Considerations in the Development of a Test to Promote Stable Bumper Engagement in Low-Speed Crashes”.) The goal is to develop a test apparatus that is able to test vehicle-to-vehicle collisions on (existing) standardized impact barriers under conditions in a manner better replicating damage to a vehicle from “real world” front end (or rear end) collisions . . . such as where the bumper of one vehicle is allowed to slip vertically onto (or under) the bumper of another vehicle. In the SAE article noted above, various energy absorbers were attached to the faces of standardized barriers, and tests were conducted and test results were analyzed. However, further improvements are desired. (See page 10 of the SAE paper 2004-01-1319, column 2, lines 24–26, “[M]ore research and development of the contoured barrier and deformable element is needed, . . . ”)
Significantly, the testing reported in the SAE article 2004-01-1319 did not provide a fascia-replicating component on the standardized barrier. Absence of a fascia-replicating component can substantially affect the dynamics of a first bumper slipping onto (or under) a second bumper, and substantially affect both collapse of the energy absorber and the amount of vehicle damage. At the same time, even though a fascia-replicating component is desired, it is desirable to allow visual access to the energy absorber without disassembly of the standardized barrier after testing. Also, attachment of the various energy absorbers to the impact barrier is not standardized and can be more difficult than is initially apparent, since attachment locations on each of the various production energy absorbers are different, as are their rear surface shapes. Both attachment and rear surface support can significantly affect performance of the energy absorber and its function. No solution to these dilemmas was suggested in the SAE article 2004-01-1319. Further, the SAE paper did not address cost issues, such as tooling costs, cost of materials, and inventory costs for bumper testing facilities. At least one entity has suggested using honeycomb aluminum (e.g. CellBond® material) adhered to a face of a barrier impact tester. However, this material is expensive, contains sharp edges when machined or cut to a given shape, and once adhered, becomes a “permanent” part of the barrier impact tester that cannot be easily removed. It is also undesirable to weld brackets and/or otherwise permanently change the impact barrier, because, aside from cost, such changes can affect or hinder other bumper tests where fascia replication is not required or desired.
The illustrated barrier 21 (FIGS. 2–4) is a prior art standardized tester. It includes a base mounting plate 26 for attachment to a pendulum support or stationary anchor, a pair of support walls 27, and a vertically-flat horizontally-curved front face plate 28 generally representing an aerodynamic vehicle bumper. The procedures for using the barriers are well known and are spelled out in American Standard Testing Methods (ASTM) manuals. It is desirable to improve the barrier 21, and other similar barriers, by providing an arrangement that better replicates a front (or rear) bumper of a vehicle, so that standardized testing can be conducted on vehicles for the purpose of determining damage from the “slipping” of one vehicle bumper over or under another vehicle bumper during a low-speed two-vehicle bumper-to-bumper collision. At the same time, any such solution must address the practical need to be inexpensive to accommodate a large number of tests (e.g. over 8,000 per year) and due to the limited funds available for testing and the cost pressures on government, insurance, automotive original equipment manufacturers, and independent vehicle test facilities. Also, the system must be easy to use, and preferably should not use adhesives or means of permanent attachment.
Thus, a modified bumper impact-testing arrangement having the aforementioned advantages and solving the aforementioned problems is desired. In particular, a standardized barrier test system is desired that allows a fascia-like member to be incorporated into the barrier tester, but that does not prevent or confuse the ability to “read” and visually inspect the test results, including deformation of internal parts, and that does not result in excessive costs and inventory considerations. Also, a single low-cost energy absorber is desired that can be used on barriers having different sweep radii.